1. Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the Certificate Case being C.C. Case No. 1/91-92 initiated against the petitioner on requisition of respondent No. 4 for recovery of part of bid amount which according to the respondents the petitioner had failed to deposit. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.03.2003 by which the warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the Certificate Debtor (petitioner). 3. It has been stated by Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after being declared the successful bidder, the petitioner had deposited 50% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs. 57,500/-and subsequently the petitioner had also deposited some amount before the competent authority. It has been stated that there was no agreement entered into between the authorities and the petitioner and in such circumstances no certificate proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that there was an agreement between the parties but in absence of there being any clause in terms with item 15 of Schedule 1 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act (the ‘Act’ for short), the same would also be not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It has further been stated that that only when a specific clause is inserted that the parities subject themselves for the realization of the amount under the Act, the petitioner could have been proceeded against. It has been further submitted that the entire certificate proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 4. At this Mr. H. K. Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has stated that the objects and purport of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act does indicate that a person who is left to make demand cannot be proceeded against as steps for realization of the amount would come within the purview of public demands. At this Mr. H. K. Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has stated that the objects and purport of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act does indicate that a person who is left to make demand cannot be proceeded against as steps for realization of the amount would come within the purview of public demands. He further submits that the petitioner although was a successful bidder but subsequently on account of laches on the part of the petitioner, steps were taken for recovery of the balance amount and interest and in such circumstances no illegality can be detected in the certificate proceeding. It has been further submitted that once objection has been filed u/s 9 of the Act, the petitioner has subjected himself to the certificate proceeding and therefore at this stage the petitioner cannot claim that the certificate officer does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue. 5. The said contention was sought to be nullified by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner by stating that even if the parties subjects themselves to the jurisdiction of the certificate officer, but absence of jurisdiction entitles the petitioner to challenge the same before a writ court. 6. The factual aspect which has led to institution of the present writ petition is that with respect to Pakur Hat as well as Gudri Bazar Hat which were twice held in a week, the same was settled by the State from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the rules framed thereunder. For the year 1986-87 a public auction was held in which the petitioner participated and was declared to be the highest bidder and his bid of Rs. 1,15,000/-was accepted by the authorities pursuant to which half of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 57,500/-was deposited by the petitioner with the Anchal Nazir and accordingly the petitioner came in possession of the hat from 01.04.1986 and he was authorized to collect toll for the period from 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1987. Subsequently some dispute arose with respect to the prevalent rate of toll collection and which ultimately led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4242 of 1986. Subsequently some dispute arose with respect to the prevalent rate of toll collection and which ultimately led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4242 of 1986. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.01.1987 with a direction that the petitioner shall deposit half of the bid money by 24.01.1987 failing which the bid of the petitioner will be cancelled by the Collector and the possession of the Hat may be taken over by him and if the petitioner deposit the amount within that time, the Collector under the Act will be liable to sign the agreement and act in terms of the contract. The petitioner since having failed to comply with the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4242 of 1986, the authorities have taken over the possession of the Hat and started collection of toll from the Hat in question. Consequently, a certificate case being C.C. Case No. 1/91-92 was initiated in which an objection was preferred by the petitioner u/s 9 of the Act denying the liability of making payment of the certificate amount of Rs. 83,375.50. Vide order dated 12.05.1995 on consideration that the objection of the petitioner had not been properly considered, a direction was given to the certificate officer to decide the petitioner’s objection u/s 9 of the Act within a period of two months. However, the said objection was rejected. 7. The primary question which has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is as to whether in terms of item 15 of Schedule I of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act in absence of there being any complete contract the petitioner can be proceeded for recovery of the dues under the said Act. In order to appreciate such contention, it would be apt to refer to item 15 of Schedule I of the Act, which reads as follows:- “15. In order to appreciate such contention, it would be apt to refer to item 15 of Schedule I of the Act, which reads as follows:- “15. Any money payable to,- (i) State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 ( No. 23 of 1955); or (ii) a Bank specified in column (2) of the first schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act V of 1970); or (iii) a company or a statutory body, including a registered society carrying on financial transactions, owned by or in which Government has a majority of shares or which is managed by an authority appointed under any law for the time being in force; or (iv) the Bihar State Electricity Board. in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as public demand. “ It therefore specifies that there has to be a written instrument in respect of which a person has agreed of being liable to pay the amount to be recovered as a public demand. Public demand which has been defined u/s 3(6) of the said Act envisages that it would mean any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon upto the date on which a certificate is signed under part II. 8. In the aforesaid background it is to be seen as to whether there has been indeed a contract and if there has been a contract whether there was a clause for recovery of public demand from the petitioner in terms of item 15 of Schedule I of the Act. Reference may be made to the order dated 14.01.1986 in which it has been clearly held that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions that the petitioner will deposit half of the bid money by 24.01.1987 the bid of the petitioner will be cancelled by the Collector and the possession of the Hat may be taken over by him. If the petitioner deposits the amount within that time, the Collector under the Act will be liable to sign the agreement and act in terms of the contract, but since the petitioner failed to comply with the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4242 of 1986, there was no occasion to sign any agreement. The counter affidavit is also silent with respect to there being any agreement entered into between the petitioner and the authorities with respect to collection of toll for Pakur Hat as well as Gudri Bazar Hat for the period from 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1987. Even if it is assumed that there was a written agreement in that circumstance also the same would also frustrate the attempt made by the State to recover the demand in terms of item 15 of Schedule I of the Act. Absence of any contract as indicated in C.W.J.C. No. 4242 of 1986 further bolsters the case of the petitioner with respect to the fact that there has been no contract/ agreement which has been entered into between the parties and therefore in such circumstances the said authorities were precluded to realize the dues from the petitioner by resorting to a certificate proceeding under the Act. In this context reference may be made to the case of M/s. Murlidhar Sohanlal v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 526 wherein it was held as follows:- “6. This being the position, in my view, in absence of any agreement as required under law the dues of the Corporation against the petitioner could not be treated a public demand within the meaning of the Act and realized thereunder. Therefore, action for realization of the same through a certificate proceeding initiated by the District Certificate Officer, Saharsa and impugned orders passed therein are per se invalid and liable to be quashed.” 9. In view of the observations made herein above, therefore initiation of the certificate proceeding against the petitioner would be contrary to the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act, as indicated above. In such circumstances, the Certificate Case being C.C. Case No. 1/91-92 initiated against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the observations made herein above, therefore initiation of the certificate proceeding against the petitioner would be contrary to the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act, as indicated above. In such circumstances, the Certificate Case being C.C. Case No. 1/91-92 initiated against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. So far as the realization of certificate amount from the petitioner in the certificate proceeding is concerned, in view of the order dated 14.05.2003 passed by this Court it has been stated that an amount of Rs. 45,000/-has already been deposited by the petitioner and since it was indicated that the deposit of the said amount will be subject to decision of the case since and it has been held that the initiation of the certificate proceeding is itself bad and illegal, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for refund of Rs. 45,000/-, which shall be considered expeditiously in view of the observations, as indicated above. 10. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.